Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

New European weather supercomputer is to be built in Italy (currently in Reading)

The existing site was no loner able to be expanded. The computer is moving but the research, Therefore the jobs, are staying. The apparatus is also funded by non EU countries.

That doesn't mean it couldn't have been relocated in Reading...

However you are missing the point. There are a lot more people than just the researchers that are involved with supercomputers. You have to include the engineers (local software, cooling, electronic etc) and so on and these will all have to move. Yes there is no reason for the researchers to move (and the same will apply to all the countries that use it). However you will lose the 'engineering scientific' staff that manage the system. There's a lot of technical expertise that will go or have to move.

Reading is jam-packed with large modern empty office buildings and edge of town business parks.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Reading is jam-packed with large modern empty office buildings and edge of town business parks.

A metaphor for modern Britain...

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I was hoping that this election for the N.I assembly would be a rejection of the corrupt tribalism between the DUP and Sinn Finn but it seems that was to much to ask for. People turned against Mike Nesbitt for wanting to work with the SDLP, and they still won't get over that damn flag. Even after the R.H.I scandal people are still voting in droves for the DUP, claiming that everyone makes mistakes and that it's more important to keep them shinners out!

On the plus side apparently the DUP no longer has the numbers to veto gay marriage, at least on its own.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Reading is jam-packed with large modern empty office buildings and edge of town business parks.

A metaphor for modern Britain...

People built loads, there's a abandoned one near me, they built lights, they laid roads and such. EU funding to boost economy.
Only they never seemed to consider if anyone wanted to use it or needed it seems.

They to date have not built a single unit on thr site and the flags left hang rather limply, the lighting, power, water and all infrastructure has been used exactly zero times. Not a single thing has been done in 5 or more years. Thr traffic lights are never on.

Its just a over grown mass, with a few roads you cannot access to stop travlers camps and some large concrete and dirt baricades about 2-3 metres high and some very battered and old site fencing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There cannot be another indepence referendum until the Brexit process has worked through.

Out of interest, apart from the Govt refusing to allow another referendum, and it being an administrative and legislative nightmare, what's your reasoning for that? I say that because Brexit could take anywhere upto a decade to sort out, according to who you talk to, and believe.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I was following the coverage on BBC Parliament and it seemed that nothing really has changed. More or less the same result as last time.

The whole thing fels like a waste of time.

Then we had a SF politican and a Unionist politician arguing about the 1970s and I knew it was time to switch channels.

That's what I hate the most about here. The constant dredging up of the past. We should have had a South African style truth and reconciliation commission set up years ago.

But as A Town Called Malus said, at least the DUP lost their veto powers. Now we might start coming into the 21st century.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I was following the coverage on BBC Parliament and it seemed that nothing really has changed. More or less the same result as last time.

The whole thing fels like a waste of time.

Then we had a SF politican and a Unionist politician arguing about the 1970s and I knew it was time to switch channels.

That's what I hate the most about here. The constant dredging up of the past. We should have had a South African style truth and reconciliation commission set up years ago.

But as A Town Called Malus said, at least the DUP lost their veto powers. Now we might start coming into the 21st century.

Northern Ireland is a beautiful country and there's some top people there (I've met a few in my time) so it's a tragedy when you think what's happened in the past.

But yeah, you're right, hopefully, a better future can be built.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Im sure I saw that spending on patient meals was down to 96p per meal in some trusts!

I'll try and find it again.

It's relative though, we need to know where they started. If the cost per meal was £400 per meal and dropped to £399 that's not really a problem. If it was £2 a meal and drops to a £1 then it is and is likely to be the proverbial "bones in gravy meal".

In 2014 some trusts had a £31 per head budget and some had £3-4 per head. If I wasnt having some kind of episode 96p is still within the lower end of the ball park. But Its interesting to note that the figures provided by trusts can include the cost of operating the service.
I guess what is more important is that food at hospitals is generally rubbished at a time when all evidence shows that a healthy nutritious diet is a key component in fighting disease and ailments which are stressing the health service. You would think appetizing meals and the odd unbruised apple would be part of the NHS arsenal.

New European weather supercomputer is to be built in Italy (currently in Reading)

The existing site was no loner able to be expanded. The computer is moving but the research, Therefore the jobs, are staying. The apparatus is also funded by non EU countries.

It's the standard short sighted penny wise pound foolish approach that's choking the NHS. Good meals and a good environment (wifes labour ward heating was fixed on passing on out hot ) would save a fortune in the long run. Instwad we can limp sandwiches


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

New European weather supercomputer is to be built in Italy (currently in Reading)

The existing site was no loner able to be expanded. The computer is moving but the research, Therefore the jobs, are staying. The apparatus is also funded by non EU countries.

That doesn't mean it couldn't have been relocated in Reading...

However you are missing the point. There are a lot more people than just the researchers that are involved with supercomputers. You have to include the engineers (local software, cooling, electronic etc) and so on and these will all have to move. Yes there is no reason for the researchers to move (and the same will apply to all the countries that use it). However you will lose the 'engineering scientific' staff that manage the system. There's a lot of technical expertise that will go or have to move.

Plus there's the political sway (whoever runs the site its in "owns" it) and potential that new operations will want to be near the computer for better latency. I'm not up to date on super computers but moving it will probably create a few jobs in Italy that came fron Reading.

 r_squared wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There cannot be another indepence referendum until the Brexit process has worked through.

Out of interest, apart from the Govt refusing to allow another referendum, and it being an administrative and legislative nightmare, what's your reasoning for that? I say that because Brexit could take anywhere upto a decade to sort out, according to who you talk to, and believe.

The UK is now trapped into the Article 50/Brexit process. That cannot be halted. Scotland is part of the UK and can't get loose for at least two years.

The UK government is trapped, but that's no reason for Scotland not to decide what it wants from independent uk. Why should we wait to for May to take us in a direction we don't want before doing something about it.

Go on, then secede.

I'd love to

Well, this is the thing, if May keeps obstructing and refusing a referendum, and Scottish public opinion starts to sway towards independence without being offered any form of democratic way to voice their opinion, thinge could very well changel in unexpected ways.

If Sturgeon manages to achieve popular support, and the Scottish believe that the Tory government is not going to listen, and drag them out of the EU, they could very well consider secession.
If the Scots turned around and just decided that they'd had enough, and actively left the UK without Westminster's assent, what exactly could Westminster do? Send troops north? Not bloody likely.

The Irish did it, why not the Scottish? Its highly unlikely at the moment, but I wouldn't discount it completely.

There already was a referendum two and a half years ago. You don't keep getting as many cracks at massively upheaving referenda as you like. Scotland voted to stay in the UK in the knowledge that sometimes UK wide referenda are held and to which they are bound, should have left if that isn't the system to which you agree. First referendum they don't like and they want out again. Does this mean that every referendum held after this point where Scotland doesn't agree with the rest of the UK it triggers another indy refendum?

The SNP should have held off demands for independence a little longer on the first referendum as an EU vote was clearly coming but they rushed and lost and now want another go straight away.

A second Indy referendum on Scotland should be after the dust has settled on Brexit, say ten-twenty years, when the financial future is more settled and the EU's disposition towards the UK and Scotland more certain. Right now no one can say what Brexit will look like so to call an Indy referendum is a massive knee jerk reaction with a completely unpredictable future. The idea that Scotland can run back into EU membership is a bit of a joke, Scotland risk being out of the EU and out of the union for a long time. And you can't just ask for another referendum to reverse it all again.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
There already was a referendum two and a half years ago. You don't keep getting as many cracks at massively upheaving referenda as you like. Scotland voted to stay in the UK in the knowledge that sometimes UK wide referenda are held and to which they are bound, should have left if that isn't the system to which you agree. First referendum they don't like and they want out again. Does this mean that every referendum held after this point where Scotland doesn't agree with the rest of the UK it triggers another indy refendum?

The SNP should have held off demands for independence a little longer on the first referendum as an EU vote was clearly coming but they rushed and lost and now want another go straight away.

A second Indy referendum on Scotland should be after the dust has settled on Brexit, say ten-twenty years, when the financial future is more settled and the EU's disposition towards the UK and Scotland more certain. Right now no one can say what Brexit will look like so to call an Indy referendum is a massive knee jerk reaction with a completely unpredictable future. The idea that Scotland can run back into EU membership is a bit of a joke, Scotland risk being out of the EU and out of the union for a long time. And you can't just ask for another referendum to reverse it all again.

EU give Scotland a instant way in is a joke.
Believe that your a idiot. They would have to apply as new state. So that's a several year process. No rebate either.
That was a UK thing.

Secondly, Scotland does leave and rejoin.
There's areas of France, and Spain who kind of would get ideas and they don,t want them to so a chance two of thr main founder, early members blocking there entry for political local reasons.

C, Scotland would be a very small fish in EU. Reason UK had clout was we are there Nuclear deterant partly... Only us and France have that capability.
No other member states have a nuclear weapons infrastructure bar those two.

The SNP were voted in overwhelmingly with a mandate to pursue their manifesto pledges,

https://www.snp.org/pb_will_there_be_another_independence_referendum

The SNP Government was elected on an explicit manifesto pledge that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to consider an independence referendum if Scotland is faced with the threat of being dragged out of the EU against its will.

Following the EU referendum Scotland now faces exactly that prospect: being taken out of the EU, despite every part of Scotland voting to remain in Europe. [...]

While independence isn’t the only option, if it turns out to be the best or only way to protect Scotland’s interests, the Scottish people must have the right to consider it.

The Scottish Government has launched a consultation on a draft Independence Referendum Bill. That means legislation for another referendum will be ready for introduction to the Scottish Parliament at any time after the triggering of Article 50, should it prove to be necessary to protect Scotland’s interests.
If there is an independence referendum, it will not be because the result of the 2014 referendum has not been respected – it will be because the promises made to Scotland have not been kept.

Scotland voted overwhelmingly, and with a clear majority, to remain in the EU. The SNP actually have very little choice but to pursue independence, and I think they can be satisfied that they have the support of their population to do so.

Whether it's convenient for the English or Welsh is not really the point. Everyone was well aware of what may happen to the UK when they put their X in the box in June last year. If the SNP continue working towards independence, no one should be surprised. I strongly suspect that arguments agains it will have to be significantly more robust than the ones that have been expressed so far on here, or by the Government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
EU give Scotland a instant way in is a joke.
Believe that your a idiot. They would have to apply as new state. So that's a several year process. No rebate either.
That was a UK thing.

I'm sure that the Scottish realise that there will be no instant re-join, or a rebate, however, seeing as they are currently members of the EU, and already conform to all the standards required, then rejoining would probably be quite smooth affair. Might still take a few years, but I doubt they'll mind.

 jhe90 wrote:
E
Secondly, Scotland does leave and rejoin.
There's areas of France, and Spain who kind of would get ideas and they don,t want them to so a chance two of thr main founder, early members blocking there entry for political local reasons.

If Scotland has already left, then allowing them to join the EU is hardly going to encourage the Basque separatists to leave, they already want independence anyway. Besides, traditionally Scotland, France and Spain have been allies against the English, I can't imagine they wouldn't enjoy allowing Scotland to enter, just to give us a little poke in the eye.

 jhe90 wrote:
E
C, Scotland would be a very small fish in EU. Reason UK had clout was we are there Nuclear deterant partly... Only us and France have that capability.
No other member states have a nuclear weapons infrastructure bar those two.

Having nuclear weapons had absolutely nothing to do with our status in the EU, I'm not sure what you're banging on about here?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Go on, then secede.

This is the only scenario where Spain would block a Scottish EU membership bid as it would create a precedence that Catalonia would use to gain membership. We don't need to secede though; Westminster will allow a second Indyref at some point, the arguments against it are weak unless they can prevaricate for years and by some miracle the Tory's manage to become the dominant power in Scotland.

 jhe90 wrote:


EU give Scotland a instant way in is a joke.
Believe that your a idiot. They would have to apply as new state. So that's a several year process. No rebate either.
That was a UK thing.

Secondly, Scotland does leave and rejoin.
There's areas of France, and Spain who kind of would get ideas and they don,t want them to so a chance two of thr main founder, early members blocking there entry for political local reasons.

C, Scotland would be a very small fish in EU. Reason UK had clout was we are there Nuclear deterant partly... Only us and France have that capability.
No other member states have a nuclear weapons infrastructure bar those two.

1. Its not a joke at all, Scotland already conforms to all EU legislation and EU politicians have been making positive noises about this since the Brexit vote. I see little realistic chance of Scottish EU membership application being delayed and no chance at all of it being blocked.

2. See 1.

3. And? The reason that the UK had 'clout' was because it has always been awkward in Europe and managed to get itself special snowflake status, not because it has nukes. I doubt that Scotland would even consider trying to gain special snowflake status.

I get the feeling a lot of independence supporters in Scotland are suffering from an echo chamber effect. The polls are still only 50/50. They have risen from 45/55 in favour of remain since the EU vote. There is no overwhelming argument, nor would it be appropriate. It would not be sensible to have a vote until the UK has left the EU, and it would not be right to have a vote until the people of Scotland knew what they were voting to leave.

 Steve steveson wrote:
There is no overwhelming argument, nor would it be appropriate.

There is though, thanks to the SNP's manifesto and the strength of support that the SNP and the EU enjoys in Scotland.

Nothing is going to happen until the Brexit deal is known though, it never was.

As for polling, it has risen since the original Indy Ref and campaigning hasn't even really started yet. As it stands it is indeed 50/50, which is why the SNP is understandably reluctant to jump the gun.

Campaigning hasn't begun yet? The SNP have never stopped. The polls remain pretty much where they were. Nothing will happen for at least 10 years.

 Steve steveson wrote:
The SNP have never stopped.

If you look at the political parties in Scotland who are actually talking about independence it is the Torys and Labour, in fact they seem to talk of little else. Campaigning hasn't started yet.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I get the feeling a lot of independence supporters in Scotland are suffering from an echo chamber effect. The polls are still only 50/50. They have risen from 45/55 in favour of remain since the EU vote. There is no overwhelming argument, nor would it be appropriate. It would not be sensible to have a vote until the UK has left the EU, and it would not be right to have a vote until the people of Scotland knew what they were voting to leave.

We have to be careful with polls at the moment given what happened both with Brexit and Trump. They aren't actually quoting errors so we don't actually know how accurate they are (if they are +/- 5%) then statistically we can't say whether there is consensus to leave or remain in the UK. My suspicion is that as the issues are so divisive at the moment that the sampling isn't truly reflective of the mood of the country. For example if you undertake a phone sample then there is a risk that you are collecting more statistical information on more conservative views (elderly for example) and are not capturing the younger generation that wish to split from the UK. Additionally whereas you might find that the households are similar politically, there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that even internally households are divided over things such as Brexit and that the sample is dependent on who picks up the phone etc.

Personally I think it will be best for Scotland to go independent. Given the mess Labour is in we might have to expect Tory government wrecking the Country for their own 'personal' and party gain for the next 10 years or so. It is quite clear that Tories just see Scotland as a cash cow rather than equal partner and although there might be some pain by going independent the Country gets to decide it's own future rather than being hamstrung by Westminster (and I'm not Scottish for the avoidance of doubt).

In my view a second referendum is inevitable and is more likely than not to result in a vote for independence, however it cannot happen until the Brexit process is complete, simply because all of government's energies have to be focussed on a very difficult set of negotiations and adaptations to the changing conditions.

I believe the earliest opportunity for a referendum will be after the two year A50 deadline has passed, but we don't know where everyone will be at that point. It could take five years to get to another referendum. There will then be another period of some years to set up new administrative arrangements which disentangle the two countries. For example, sharing out the national debt, and working out mutual defence alliances.

Assuming the Scots vote for independence it is clear they will also vote to join the EU. Which will be a right laugh.

 Whirlwind wrote:

We have to be careful with polls at the moment given what happened both with Brexit and Trump. They aren't actually quoting errors so we don't actually know how accurate they are (if they are +/- 5%) then statistically we can't say whether there is consensus to leave or remain in the UK.

Not really. Both Trump and Brexit were wrong, but the gaps were quite small margins. Brexit less than 2%, Trump lost the popular vote. Yes, they both won, but neither of those are overwhelming, and overwhelming is both what the people calling for a second referendum are claiming, and what it requires this soon after the last one. For the same reason we must accept Trump and Brexit, the first referendum must also me accepted for a decent length of time or until the evidence that attitudes have changed truly is overwhelming. Polls still hovering around 50/50, even with errors, is not even close.

I don't know, after the brexit vote, that's all the justification they need, IMO. Wasn't one of the main arguments against the referendum that it would disrupt the economy and Scotland would no longer be part of the EU? Well that's all out of the window now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't know, after the brexit vote, that's all the justification they need, IMO. Wasn't one of the main arguments against the referendum that it would disrupt the economy and Scotland would no longer be part of the EU? Well that's all out of the window now.

it's a little different. The UK can survive quite merrily outside the EU. Whereas Scotland would pretty much go broke. They'd either have to get rid of their NHS or their free university education.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't know, after the brexit vote, that's all the justification they need, IMO. Wasn't one of the main arguments against the referendum that it would disrupt the economy and Scotland would no longer be part of the EU? Well that's all out of the window now.

it's a little different. The UK can survive quite merrily outside the EU. Whereas Scotland would pretty much go broke. They'd either have to get rid of their NHS or their free university education.

Also they'll likely have to accept the Euro and sign up to schengen if they want entry which could still take years because they won't be in a strong position to ask anything. Scotland will be facing an uncertain financial future alone and a risk adverse EU may drag membership or just not want to take on a country that won't be a strong net contributor. They have enough countries taking out more than they put in, the EU won't be taking Scotland in to prop up their NHS - keeping it going will be a difficult guarantee for the SNP to make.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't know, after the brexit vote, that's all the justification they need, IMO. Wasn't one of the main arguments against the referendum that it would disrupt the economy and Scotland would no longer be part of the EU? Well that's all out of the window now.

Not that I would advocate for Scotland to declare independence, but if I were Scottish, I'd certainly feel like I'd been baited and switched, and the same "sovereignty" arguments that the English relied on to separate from the EU could certainly be applied with just as much validity to Scotland and the Union, particularly given that the geopolitical and economics of Brexit and Scottish Independence both appear to be in favor of remaining.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't know, after the brexit vote, that's all the justification they need, IMO. Wasn't one of the main arguments against the referendum that it would disrupt the economy and Scotland would no longer be part of the EU? Well that's all out of the window now.

it's a little different. The UK can survive quite merrily outside the EU. Whereas Scotland would pretty much go broke. They'd either have to get rid of their NHS or their free university education.

I thought Scotland gave more in taxes than they got? I will admit, I am just an ignorant American here.